Learning to build Europe Danielle Bossaert, Michael Kaeding

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Conference on the simplification of the Common Agricultural Policy A simple CAP for Europe-a challenge for all Brussels, 3-4 October 2006 DG AGRIs assessment.
Advertisements

Evaluating administrative and institutional capacity building
E.U. Consultation on Commission Staff Working Document: Transnational Company Agreements – TCA’s.
EPSU – young workers and precarious work Nick Clark Working Live Research Institute.
Priorities of the Luxembourgish EUPAN Presidency th Meeting of EUPAN Directors General RIGA, 11 th & 12 th June 2015.
OECD Survey and Analytical Paper: Managing diversity - " Effectively responding to the HRM needs of a more diverse public administration " EUPAN TROÏKA.
ILO Turin Training Centre, December 11-13, 2007 Public pay system reforms.
THE WORKSHOP Berlin, May 2012 Agnieszka GOLAS EUROCADRES’ project expert.
Main results of the “Comparative Report”: an overview of the educational systems in five EU countries and theirs training offer in agricultural machinery.
Regional Co-operation Council Workshop on enhancing women entrepreneurs in SEE Milena Corradini Sarajevo, 1 October 2009.
European Institute of Public Administration (EIPA), Maastricht © E.Best, EIPA, 2007 Mid-term evaluation of the European social dialogue test phase for.
European Commission European social dialogue and Labour Law Transnational company agreements Evelyne Pichot European Commission Roma, September 2009.
MANAGING A DIVERSE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION EUPAN DG Meeting Luxembourg December 04, 2015 Daniel Gerson Project Manager – Public Employment and Management.
49th DG Meeting Lisbon, December. HUMAN RESOURCES WORKING GROUP WORKING ITEMS Performance assessment Competence based Management The Network of.
What are Public Services Good at? Successes and Failures of Public Services in the field of Human Resource Management Study commissioned by the Slovenian.
1 EMPLOYMENT, SOCIAL PROTECTION AND DECENT WORK Outcomes from Workshop in Dakar 30 June-2 July 2011 Hjördis D’Agostino Ogendo European Commission DG EuropeAid.
Government at a Glance Key Challenges for Government Reassessing the Role of Government Transparency and Accountability Building the Right Capacities The.
Commission Staff Working Document Free Movement of Workers in the Public Sector 18 January 2011 Ursula Scheuer European Commission DG Employment, Social.
Prof. Lalko DULEVSKI President of the ESC of Bulgaria Ad hoc group Europe 2020 Steering Committee, , Brussels.
Project: EaP countries cooperation for promoting quality assurance in higher education Maria Stratan European Institute for Political Studies of Moldova.
This session commences the second part of the content.
Main conclusions from the 7th European CAF Users Event
Project number: FR01-KA REALISE Realising the potential of the international mobility of staff in higher education.
Conference on the simplification of the Common Agricultural Policy
EYV 2011 Alliance Céline Barlet (Project Officer) 1.
Country and thematic knowledge on public administration
Update “Information on the Structure of the Civil and Public Services of the EU Member and Accession States” Stefan Ritter
Dan Tofan | Expert in NIS 21st Art. 13a WG| LISBON |
SOCIAL DIALOGUE IN THE SOCIAL SERVICES SECTOR IN EUROPE
INNOVATIVE POLICY LABS IN THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
EPAN – Lisbon ad hoc group Welcome - Agenda Introduction
Basics European Social Model - European Social Dialogue
First meeting October 15th, 2009
Reducing Administrative Burdens -Initiatives-
Summary of key findings Inga Pavlovaite
THE PROGRAMME OF THE GREEK PRESIDENCY
Activities of the Human Resources Working Group
MEETING OF THE SECRETARIAT
49th Meeting of the Directors Generals for public Administration in the European Union DISPA - Meeting of Directors of Institutes and Schools of Public.
European Administrative Space - EAS
Agenda on the first HWRG meeting 14 and 15 September
Workplace innovation in European companies: Qualitative follow-up interviews based on the third European Company Survey STAVROULA DEMETRIADES Senior Programme.
Public Service Ethics of the EU Member States: a Follow-up Study
EUPAN DG-Meeting Innovative Public Services Group (IPSG)
PORTUGUESE PRESIDENCY MANDATE FOR SOCIAL DIALOGUE
A Primer on Customer Satisfaction Management
Culture Statistics: policy needs
Task force on highly mobile workers
DG Troika – 26 October – Portugal
Troika of Directors General – Meeting 24 March 2006 Activities of the Human Resources WG Karin Thienel.
Valvira The National Supervisory Authority for Welfare and Health
HRWG september 2009 Stockholm Session on MTP and WP
July 2008-December th April 2008
Customer Satisfaction Management
SOCIAL DIALOGUE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EUPAN
Swedish EUPAN Organisation
Top Public Managers in Europe Update of previous study
Preparing Ministerial Recommendations for the Medium-Term Programme (MTP)
First Meeting, Lisbon July
Luxembourg, 03rd December 2015
Strengthening the Role of EQAVET National Reference Points
ESF Expert Evaluation Network Evaluation Partnership Meeting Herta Tödtling-Schönhofer & Isabel Naylon.
Conference on the simplification of the Common Agricultural Policy
European Social Dialogue & the Civil Service
Social Dialogue Test Phase SDWG meetings
Troika Secretariat - 2nd Meeting
Customer Satisfaction Measurement in European Public Administrations
E-GOVERNMENT WG MEETING
Communication & Technology Research
PRECARIR meeting, September 17-18, 2015, Bratislava
Presentation transcript:

Learning to build Europe Danielle Bossaert, Michael Kaeding Title: Differences in the Field of Social Dialogue in Central Public Administrations of the EU Member States Danielle Bossaert, Michael Kaeding

Aims of the Survey Commissioned by the Swedish Presidency Follow-up of the comparative analysis of the social dialogue (SD) in the central public administrations of the EU Member States carried out under the French Presidency A more in-depth analysis of differences of selected SD systems across the European Union A focus on differences as regards employment and management systems in which the SD takes place in selected EU Member States

Methodology of the Survey Focus of the comparative survey on 4 selected EU Member States (Finland, Italy, Germany, Poland) The 4 selected EU Member States reflect a fair selection of the different administrative systems and cultures The survey will be based on studies and comparative surveys from EIPA, OECD and EGPA as well as on interviews with national experts in the field of social dialogue

Added-Value of the Survey in the Context of EUPAN In the context of the EUPAN test phase of the social dialogue, the survey aims: To raise the awareness for the great variety of SD practices in central public administrations To enhance the understanding of differences as regards the functioning of SD in selected EU Member States To enhance the understanding of different logics/attitudes/behaviours in the field of SD within EUPAN

Key Points to Analyze 1. Analysis of different legal and administrative/management contexts, in which the SD takes place in selected EU MS 2. Analysis of different structural and organizational patterns of SD 3. Analysis of different practices of SD

Key Points to Analyze 1. Analysis of different legal and administrative/management contexts, in which the SD takes place in selected EU MS Major differences as regards the employment relationships between the State employer and public employees and their impact on the practice of SD (statutory; contractual – differences between public/private employment relationships) Major differences as regards the management of personnel/human resources and its relevance for the social dialogue (centralization/decentralization of HRM; the involvement of line ministers; the role of the personnel/HRdepartments: administrative or strategic HRM?)

Key Points to Analyze 2. Analysis of different structural and organizational patterns of SD Major differences as regards the structure of the social dialogue (centralized/decentralized; unified/fragmented); the major actors involved (political/administrative/technical) on the employers’ side as well as regards the organizational capacity (expertise, number of staff) of the major actor.

3. Analysis of different practices of SD Key Points to Analyze 3. Analysis of different practices of SD Major differences as regards the most important topics of bargaining; major differences as regards the legal character of the results of collective bargaining and as regards the competencies of the different actors

Hypotheses It is assumed - that differences which are linked to the nature and content of the employment relationship(s) between the State employer and the public employee as well as to the management of personnel/HR have an impact on the significance, organization, content and outcome of the SD in the different countries. - that the SD is characterized in those countries, which have introduced a contractual employment relationship, a decentralized, strategic HRM approach as well as in general far reaching reforms in the field of HRM, by its high significance, its broad scope and by considerable similarities with the practice prevalent in the private sector. - that the SD is very similiar in the public and in the private sector in those countries, in which labour law and civil service law are fundamentally similar. - that there is a slow, but steady trend towards a moderated decentralization and privatization of the social dialogue in the selected case studies.

Outlook Presentation of the final survey at the EUPAN/HRWG meeting in Malmö, 17-18 November 2009 Presentation at the DG meeting in Stockholm, 10-11 December 2009 Update/validation of the country factsheets on the Social Dialogue finalized under the French Presidency